Is a Marxist Theory of the State Possible 1·

c. van Benthem van den Berth

Is a arx· Tory of the· State Possi ?

G. van Benthem van den Bergh

No. 61, February 1977

1. RECENT MARXIST THEORISING ABOUT THE STATE*

Nation-states have become, for better or for worse, the basic units into which humanity in a more and more inter­dependerit world is divided. Notwithstanding what the predominant mode of production in the states of the pre­sent world may be, states allover the world are organised in_a remarkably similar manner. They all have armies or at least police forces, custom officials, secret services, a diplomatic service, central taxation systems and civil bureaucracies divided into departments headed by cabinet ministers. They all have central institutions located in the state capital, provincial or regional administrations and local governments~ There are few states that are ethnically, linguistically and culturally homogeneous to the extent that they have no problems with so-called 'national minorities'. Political parties, whether one or more, are also a nearly universal feature of present day state societies. Nearly all states attempt some form of planning the development of their economies. All state societies are supposed to coincide with 'nations' or if they are Federations with 'peoples': they in any case all have a national flag, a national hymn, a national history and a national ideology, containing an image of their own society in contrast to neighbouring state societies, usually based upon what are considered to be the best' characteristics of one's own nation and the worst charac­teristics of neighbouring societies. These national images and stereo-types fulfil similar functions of iden­tification and integration allover the world.

The common features of states of the present day world - no matter whether. their modes of production can be described as liberal capitalist, state-capitalist,. mixed or socialist - are usually taken for granted as· self-evident facts of modern life. Yet, they require explanation. Why do we observe such similarities notwith­standing great differences in terms of. cultural. heritage, mode of production, class structure, pattern of income distribution, p~edominant political ideology, and degree of dependence on- other sta.tes a~d economies? Do processes of state formation have a structure and direction of their own, a specific seq~ence of phases,. which are re~tively

*I am grateful to Brian van Arkadie, Rod Aya, Oscar Braun, Johan Goudsblom, Ken Post, Peter Skalnik and Peter Naterman for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. I ·thank Rod Ayafor permitting me to use his translation of the' introduction to the Critique of Polit.iaal Eaonomy.

- 2 -

autonomous from processes of economic development or' ~ in f.1i;l.rxist terms - frQllI sequences. or modes of'prpduction?l

To. ask this, question is to address oneself to. the heart of, the recently revived debate on the Marxist theory of the state. It should be said from the outset, however, that this is primarily a debate on'the theory of the aapi­taZist state, a combination of terms which indicates that the participants in the discussion are but little concerned with the question formulated above. To speak of the aapi­taZist state is in fact an implicit answer to that question: the state is supposed to be a function of the mode of pro­duction - and the nation-state the product of capitalism. 2

If the state in the Marxist'theory of development is seen as s~ordinate, as an 'epiphenomenon of the class struggle' , which belongs to the superstr.ucture, 'why then is there now such vivid interest among Marxists in the theory of the state? Four reasons can be distinguished, each a mixture of political-strategic and theoretical motives.

(a) In advanced capitalist states one can observe a con~ 'tinuously increasing number of economic functions of the government and state bureaucracies. One often speaks of an interminglihg between state and economy, which makes havoc of the liberal premises of the desirability of sepa­ration between state and economy. Monopolisation of eco­nomic power in global corporations and an increase in the number and importance of the economic functions of states go hand in hand. These developments have been conceptua­lised in the theory of state monopoly capitalism, as pro­pounded by Soviet and Eastern European sc~olars and taken up by western European communist parties. They are also expressed in the title of the Marxist journal KapitaZistate, published in the United States and supported by'contributors from allover western Europe. In order to explain these developments and the role of the state in the economy Marxists argue that the theory of the state needs to be further developed.

(b) In post-colonial societies, incorporated into the world-wide division of labour dominated by the advanced industrial states and by global corporations, and for that reason often called peripheral capitalist societies, it has become clear that the economic functions of the state are also becoming more and more important. And an in­creasing number of Third World states are governed by military-bureaucratic oligarchies. When they want to explain why the military and state bureaucracy are so much more important in post-colonial state societies than the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie, Marxist scholars are also con­fronted with the inadequacies of the Marxist theorv of the state. The discussion among Marxists on the post-colonial

- 3 -

state has been started with an article by the Pakistani scholarSHarnza Alavi and is now also applied to African states. (c) Then there is the stubborn refu,sal of 'socialist' states to show any signs of beginning to wither away, as they should according to the Marxist theory of development. Different arguments are advanced to explain that on the contrary the Soviet, Chinese or Cuban states continuously expand their functions and power. It is said that they are still in a period of transition and that the socialist mode of production has not yet come to fruition within them.. Another argument is to say that in the Soviet Union a 'radically new type of capitalist social formation' has emerged. Indeed to label the Soviet Union a capitalist state is to solve all problems and makes it possible to argue, as Martin Shaw does, 'that the expansion of the state in "communist" societies is only apparently contra­dictory to the Marxian theory, and that the theory in fact provides the basis for a more adequate accouht of this phenomenon,.6 Karl Marx himself would,not have considered such arguments adequate enough:

The question then arises what transformations will the nature of the state (Staatswesen) undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analagous to present functions of the state? This question can only be answered scientifically and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousandfold combi­nation of the word people with the word state.7

A last argument would be to say that present day 'socia­list' states embody the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but it is rather difficult to maintain that Stalinist terror was directed only at the ,destruction of the bour­geois state apparatus. Marx's comment is also appropriate in this connection, if we remember that Stalin declared in 1936 that the Soviet-state had become the state of the people as a whole. But it is,more in accordance with Marx's own categories to say that the Soviet Union embodies neither the dictatorship of the proletariat nor the people as a whole, but that a bureaucratic class has emgrged there, as the Dutch Marxist S. Stuurman has asserted. But if that

'. is so, a theory of state formation becomes all the more' indispensable. Why could this bureaucratic class emerge?

'.1.'ha t rC?vol,1,i,tions - whether or not in the, n?-!l1e of socialIsm -,lead to anything but a state and classless society, but on the contrary to a strengthening of the state, and to

. new patterns of class f.ormation has also been an important observation for the Marxian theory of political develop­ment as outlined in Barrington Moore's SoaiaZ Origins of Diatatorship and Demoaraay. That revolutions strengthen

- 4 -

state power instead of the other way round, has been 'taken as starting point for theorising about the autonomous development and role of the state and of state bureaucra­cies bY,a few American scholars influenced by Barrington Moore. 9 The discussion on the Marxist theory of state, however, has been little affected by this kind of histori­cal-sociological research. This might change, if the research on state formation and nationalism of the British Marxian scholars Perry Anderson and Tom Nairn and the research,on the capitalist mode of production as a 'world system, 01= the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein ~~!ls~=t!~fBn up in the debate on the Marxist theory of

(d) The last reason is less directly related to historical developments in different parts of the world. This is the long-standing debate between Marxists and what they prefer to'call bourgeois social science. Anti-Marxist social scientists have contributed to this misleading categorisa­tion by lumping Ma'rxian and Marxist scholars together, and then taking the most dogmatic of Marxist writings as repre­sentative of the whole. Nevertheless, it is mistaken in " two ways: it 'neglects the aristocratic-conservative tradi- " tion in social science which has been at least as influen- \ tial as the liberal-bourgeois tradi tion. 11But, more serious- . ly, 'it creates a blindness to the way,in which the two opposing traditions form what Norbert Elias has called a 'paradigm, community' (in a lecture given at the University· of Amster-' dam, 30 November 1976) sharing certain presuppositions -such as the primacy of the 'economic' as, determinant of social development and social structure """ and classifymg all attempts to go beyond those, such as the work of Elias himself, 'as belonging either to one or the other part of that paradigm community. But how can one classify ~ within that coinmllnity of arguments - a theory of development of which class struggles form just as integral a part as the' formation 'of establishments and outsider groups, or for that matter state and nation formation? Elias' work clearly goes beyond the paradigm community which liberal and Marxist social scientists form. As Poulantzas says: 'The class division of society necessarily means class struggle, for we cannot speak of classes without speaking of the class struggle. This runs counter to official modern sociol'ogy, which is preparedtQ speak about classes but never about the class struggle,.1;.! But class struggles (in the plural) are an integral part of Elias' theory of the development of human societies. ,

But f!1arxists are still caught in what ,they perceive as the polarity between two class-bound ,sociaL sciences. This inspires a continuing polemic against theories ' developed in social science disciplines as, th~yhavebecome institutionalised in American and Western Europe?n Universities,

- 5 -

(Le. economics, anthropology, sociology and political science) • On~ recent contribution to the Marxist theory of the state, Ralph Miliband's The State in CapitaZist Soaiety, has been written as a polemic against the theory of poli­tical pluralism which has been dominant in Americanpoli­tical science. Miliband's aim is to show that these 'bourgeois' theories are wrong because in capitalist society the statr3 is in fact 'the coercive instrument of a ruling class'.

A different way to wage the polemic is to show that tlie Marxist theoretical approach is better suited to under­stand and explain politics than bourgeois social science. The most influential recent attempt to develop the Marxist theory of the state from such a vantage point is Nicos Poulantzas' Pouvoir> Politique et Classes Soaiales. The difference between such a direct and indirect polemic have been made clear by the authors of these two books in a debate published in the English journal The 'New Left Review. 14 In this debate the problems of a Harxist theory of the state have been spelt out in great detail.

Each of the four reasons just mentioned provides us . with examples of the difficulties of Marxist theorising

about the state or for that matter about politics. The first points to the problem of the relationship, between, the economic base and the political and ideological super­structure, a basic tenet of Marxist theory which as far as one can now see must be maintained to preserve the. inte­grity of the Marxist conceptual and theoretical framework. The second shows the difficulty of clearly relating class format;ion processes to the development of states. Alavi, for example, has pointed out that in post-colonial socie­ties one cannot speak of a single ruling class as one could in western Europe, but has to distinguish three ruling classes, between which a 'military-bureaucratic oligarchy' is supposed to mediate or arbitrate. The third brings out the fact that Marxists only have a theory of capitalist states. They have no theory of state formation as a pro­cess with a direction of its own, notwithstanding the par­ticular character of a mode of production, which would make it possible to explain the similarities between the state 'formation processes of 'capitalist I and 'socialist'

. states. The fourth shows the limitations of the Marxist theory of sequences of modes of production, as determined by the internal dynamics of societies. The latter assump­tion clarifies why Marxists attempt to develop a theory of the state in the singular, instead of taking the elementary observation into account that states alwavs exist in the plural. Marxists fhArefore do not incorporate into their theory of' tne S6n,., 1:11e reqU.1.d' .... .:1.;;".. of"inte:cst:atoi-coI!!Peti­t.ion or the modelHila Af(ects 0;1: mo):§;. <'ld-il"UlCa'a (e:ff,ecti~y

- 6 -

cent:t:.al~e.d iUld, btlreaucr_atised) state:;; on,J~s a~vanced states • .L..> '

These problems of Marxist theorising on the state will be discussed mor,e. extensively below. However, the theoretical problems and the inadequacies of the Marxist theory of the state can be better understood, if the ori­gins of Marx.' s own ideas about the state and its relation­ship with what is now called the economy or the society are first analysed.

2. THE ORIGINS OF MARX'S THEORY OF THE STATE

The implicit assumption of most recent discussions about', the Marxist theory-of the state is that the concepts and notions which Marx used in order to understand the rela­tionship between politics and economics or the relation­ship between state and mode of production were developed by Marx as if he was a contemporary social scientist • .l6 It is presumed that Marx simply studied society, economy and politics as social scientists do now and that he coined his concepts in relationship to facts and processes that he actually observed. What is insufficiently reali'sed is that Marx's ideas about the state and'its relationship with society developed in the context of the philosophical tradition and, debates of his time. Harx remained all of his life primariJy interested in the'.Liberd'Cion'ot human ~ea:~<!.!l ' ar;d 'g~t.L v:!-f~ a :t=un~t.Lci-:! ,Wh.l.d:i 'hec'ldf'=:.,_~C1l~e. ~ to assign 'C2 :!:.!!§':£,!:J;:Q.!..~_.La~al.3_ the, 'Ul1i'l[E:!l=saL' 'cLass. As AV.l.no:ri fOrmULal:eS the ma.l.n pL'eoccupa.'C.l.v.~· or Ma.Lx, when he started to write his critique of Hegel's PhiZosophy of Right: , '

For' Marx, Hegel's chief attraction lay in his philosophy's apparent abiljty to become the key to the realisation of idealism inrealitv, thus eliminating the dichotomy [between the 'Is' and the 'ought' -BvdB] Kant bequeathed to the German philosophical tradition.17

Most of the serious biographies of Marx stress the same , point, that he remElined pr~occu'pied with these I2hUQl2QJ2hi­cal questions ~ -;;VI:l1 WIlen he 'Cur ned nis 'actt:.n'C:Lon more and more to T tne c3i:i Hque of' p'oh t.L'CCilecoiio,l,y ','. 'to, 'Cne ' analy­sTIr 'O'f t'I:m- Sl:itiCt.iii'e'-and dynamic's' of -explOi tatIoribY social ctd;;;ses ,5'f'ut:ner social'cLiisses.f-& rri'1r~Gtna::LysiSoi -Ma'ri (s anttu:'opoiogy Bei'EeirOHiliann also emphasises the continuity of Marx's thought since the 1844 Manuscripts:

Even, the concession which is always made regard­ing the new terminology Marx adopted after 1844 is overdone. The 'Hegelian' and 'Feuerbachian' language is only partly replaced by another, better suited to presenting Marx's ideas and

- 7 -

getting them accepted ••. Even in his later works however, whenever connections across disciplines

'had to be made! he frequently resorted to these 'older' terms. 9

But this is not to say that for Marx observable realities were not important. They certainly were. It should also be stressed that Marx has contributed greatly to the development of the social sciences, through the way in which he translated his philosophical quest in attempting to understand the immanent dynamics of the development of human'societies. Nevertheless, in order to understand certain present problems of Marxist theorising, it is necessary to bear in mind that his conceptualisation of the structure and development of human societies remained firmly anchored in what was originally a philosophical problematic. Ma~x's analysis of the relationship between state and society (at that time he was not yet concerned with economic problems) started with his critical examina­tion of Hegel's PhiZosophy of Right, written in 1843 after the Rheinische Zeitung was forbidden by ~~ng Frederick William IV and his Council of Ministers.

Hegel's own theory of the state is an attempt to systematically discuss the implications of the distinction between state and civil society which occupied a central place in 18th and early 19th century political, philosophy. The term 'civil society' was diffused allover Europe through translations of the Scottish moral philosopher, Adam Ferguson's Essay on the History of CiviZ Society (1767), a study of what Ferguson saw as the. progress of society from rudeness to refinement. Ferguson speaks of" 'crude society' in contrast to 'civil society' .21 But Hegel uses 'bilrgerliche Gesellschaft' as the translation of civil society. From 'bilrgerliche Gesellschaft', ,."hich may still refer to a society in which the civllisedcon­duct of town citizens is seen as the embodiment of pro­gress, it is but one step to 'bourgeois Gesellschaft', as the class dominated capitalist society, which it became for Marx. But the antecedents of the distinction between state and civil society remain important for understanding Marx.

The. philosophical discussion on the relationship between state and civil society can be better understood if it is seen in the context of the process of state for­mation, i.e. the development of dynastic states into so­called absolute monarchies. One can see the change in 'preoccupation of political philosophers if one compares Hobbes' Leviathan in which the central problem is the establishment of domestic peace and order - in Elias' terms: of a reiatively stable central (state) 'monopoly of the use and control over- the means o.f violence - with those of· John Locke, the Scottish and French Enlightenment,

- 8 -

and especially the physiocrats. In their writings one can see a clear shift in preoccupation from the problem of order to viewing the state - the absolute monarchy - as an obstacle to the natural development of society and economy. If left to itself the natural, harmonious order of society would emerge. 22 Thus, the distinction

<between state and civil society formed the context and . . determined the terms with which philo~ophical debates on political problems were waged. To this it should be added that· political philosophy in the 18th and early 19th centuries could be a dangerous activity. It was often nece~sary to be very careful in choosing one's word,s and discuss contemporary political problems as 'if they were metaphysical problems sub specie aeternitatis. In the case of Hegel it is difficult to determine to .

iwhat extent his language was developed as an outgrowth of his theological upbringing or as a deliberate attempt !to disguise the politically dangerous implications'of ihis ideas,? 3

It is impossible here to discuss in detail the com­plex relationship between Hegel and Marx. What should be' stressed is that,the standard Marxist conception - l12.rx himself' did have' also more nuanced views;·: cif'ille 19th century Vilestern European state astiTen:rxt:!OUHve C:Oliuliittee qr.tiJ.e . .I.ji1~~Qq cLiss __ .3:"Li".Wnole··· (file """bciuryeol.slEf:[ tar :tn broader tenui:l 0:<: tne clasB character: 'or' me ;'n:al:e~-'goes oack 'toMa:r:x~~~~ b • ..JJ.~tnfc· ~l.tn i1egl:lL r S .r1i!fod01!hy:, _0)''' "y-tght;. II'f' Heqel. '.s . .tll.e.orll. of .the :Sti(£"e--':fi", diRtincl:iori betwee.rr s.tjte 'arid q.j,y_il_s.oC:!:~,tY,9ciC:::llplE:;s· ':ace-n~s.~T i:La:ce .. liE3ge].

. describes c; viI !?09.iet:L as the. clasI:U?,f sOC1.il.li:'o'rcf:!s, in lWiileirfT s word* 'to .be t:l:",anE£c."Einaed Qy tne~ ... :m:rvers~U ~Z of" fliti'state'--: ". slit HS).gel _st.l..LJ,..eg.ua.t§.§. t~ .J.ln~versality oft.1'l..§!~...s.t:.a.:t.e: .N-rth. .mona.xi::h¥: . . -

Hegel vindicated monarchy by saying that it 'expresses in an ideal form the prinCiple that subjectivity and self-determination are under-lying sources of the objective norms and insti­tutions of the state. By saying 'Ie Roi Ie veult', the monarch expresses the individual self-determination which, according to Hegel, characterises political institutionalisation in the modern world.

Marx saw this as a rationalisation. The will of the mon-':' arch was the will of one person"separated from the uni- ~" versality of the consciousness of the people as a whole. ,. Avineri gives a clear. example of the difference between the reasoning of Hegel and that of Marx. For Marx one should say: 'in the historical context of the early 19.th century, the will 'of 'the monarch finally decides'. But Hegel hypostasised such an observation of factual relations

- 9 -

into: 'the final decision of the will is the monarch' .25 Ina similar manner Marx demonstrates 'that Hegel perceives the state as set apart from the real context of social relationships. Marx already anticipates his later concep-

, tualisation of a dependent relationship between state and ruling class by pointing out that the 'objective arrange­ments of the state are just so many particular interests parading under the banner of the general and the universal'.

The, distinction between superstructure and base became the conceptual basis of Marx's developmental scheme of , sequences of modes of production in human history, trans­formed into the mechanistic Marxist-Leninist conception of a necessary and automatic s~quence within all human socie­ties, sanctified by Stalin into 'universal history', with the Soviet Union leading mankind on its predetermined path. But the original distinction goes back to Marx's quarrel. wi th Hegel's separation of man and natur'e-or, in more abstract terms, spirit and matter. Following Feuerbach Marx con­tended that no longer thought should be the subject of philosophy but man and his 'material' needs. 26 , In the Preface to the Critique of PoZitiaaZ Eaonomy Marx expresses his own intellectual development in this respect quite clearly:

My investigation led to the conclusion that legal relations as well as forms of the state are to be understood neither by themselves nor in terms of the so-called universal development of the human spirit but, on the contrary, are rooted in the material relation of life whose totality Hegel, following the precedent of the English and French (writers) of the 19th century, sums up under the name 'civil society' (burgerlidhe Gesellschaft) ; mpreover, that the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.

-,~.

If one combines the dichotomies between state and civil society and between spirit qnd matter as they were' conven­tionally understood in the period preceding Marx one can see how the conceptualisation of the development and func­tions of the state as belonging to the superstructure can only be understood in the context of the philosophical dis­cussions of Marx's time. Hegel's dictum 'it is as absurd to ,fancy that an individual can overleap his own age, jump over Rhodes' is appropriate here.27 The image of state Versus civil society remained important in Marx's later more scientific writings • He,g:e.l.. bad,alrea,dy use,d

"burgerliche Gesellschaft' as the ~iY~.~ Q~~l , socl.ety in FerciilSClfi+"r sensei': ' But for Marx 'b.Ur.ged.1.che Gl§senSChaJi_~. , :J.-n~rei,~,siDg:!-y' be'came, ',a, s-oc~eiy dOJDina.t:e.cl by ttre---Seurqee:i:s-ie "as a social ·Class. 'i'fierefor§ l1arx -BO

],onger-'coriEe'Iv'ea' (h'e-pro.51em 0~ Jjlak~rig~pbilQ?RJ2hy, cQIlle tiii'e"'as~ t1m ~l!:l~-E,~~~' 6rr'atiC?nal,.w.il~, ~tt;!:'o)Jg.!:L i;!J.t?

- 10 -

inRtitutions of the sr~rp. One must search for the immanent 'forces ''l')al2cible of transforrninq'society -no 'ttre· cnredi:iOii of lAberatin.9_man '!iJ . reasc:i~.~q. . c~§.~:r:ii:e: . capaci..tY.· ~ 01j!3 . inu§ t ~x~-!I.1e.~thf1! aC?_t~~f,I~~Ijl,n_~:i:e_S!...._cHlc! .. Eotenj:J,~l:l:!;.i.es within ~~,,~ety Jt~e}"! !, .. ~o,,:, .. t:h.e, 's~pe~s.!:ruct~J:El'2~f. the ,~~~ tel or the iaeas leg~t~mat~ng crass d.ominat:l.on"-...... Affer '\:firs poTemIc ;" hrsT 'wi'tn' Regel "1iimsen" ana 'Bien' wi th the young Hegelians,Marx turned his attention away from the state and politics and became increasingly preoccupied with poli­tical economy. The left ijegelians saw as th.e most important obstacle to human" "freedom' ·ano-·£fi.e'"l"ioera £loKi 6rriiiul;stcrea~ flv~-cfatiacJ:1:V' file" j:'-ei'ficat1on 'Of" fonriertV"5i'on"l~i1rsnre' nmti­tlfHons':" "t:Jie" reHqr6iis"neTiefs"Whichcame'"to ~e":u.s:ea '-t6.: j'U'sit'ffi po iI tIcai'·".;orii:f.i1~\fJ.£ri;··- Buuaiiji~iircome - to' f'Eie' ' t!i~~~. ~riti,g~ tidJ:l~J:i~·;.s .-'!~" mer~iy_a .;"0..!ID .~~3E~rQ.~v , which §l!l2u.ldno_t, e9.cEPY .~_.9f2n~:p.l5tC§!.,i...n._!;oC:-!-~"l analys.i.s. Tne re~l 'material' needs of human beinqs ~na the WnV in

I whicn "they'cope-wi'fii' these needs" iri' processes of proauction and . ·i:ei,~rj5Cfi;i:~4'c>!l_ s.119tl,Ia ..... h§:9s;:~1:0"ii;li, p§,-, p.,(~iia, . ci.£: -til~ ", qe.ntre OT. -attention. . '"ThUs, the origins of l-1arx's own theory of the state is

to be found in his attempt to emancipate hi~self from the philosophy .of Hegel. !,3:ut "H,O!!,EU:1,1.J;:iis __ ~_9!:mc_e.p.1;:':l~~ ,!E~_e­wQrk,.QrU,:ts}:l€l3,(~1 }.~_0!"2e.L];;,O, .. ~?n .J,.!;Q.t:.,H.Lffi!'!j;?'Q!:!y'~;i"ci!:l. connotat~ons, one still has to_continue to use its. terms. E'y~Ii ~.t?:QygfLi:.ruLiii.eanl.iii~ pf-' :!:h.a.' .. c.o.n..G::e:p .. :f§' ~ma:l --b-e"chari9.ed·, t!1.e int§!rnal_r!3la:tions. of trua. __ c~:t1:la} scheltld remain the same. -- ,

.- A recent survey of present tendencies in Marxist theory . of the state shows clearly to what extent the recent debates still remain "tied to the conceptual categories whioh Marx 29 derived from Hegel's synthesis of 18th century philosophy Three directions in Marxist theorising are distin~uished. (al Instrumentalist, in which the state is seen primarily in terms .of the functions that it fulfils for the ruling 'capitalist' class. It is empirically oriented and attempts to demonstrate the strong influence 'of bourgeois ideology in the political system of capitalist states. Hiliband's The state in Capitalist Soaiety is a prototype example of this kind of Marxist approach to the state.

(bl Structuralist, which tries to relate the state in a more abstract manner to the theory of the capitalist mode of production. Here the state and its apparatus are ana­lysed with respect to the functions which they fulfil for the maintenance and smooth functioning of the capitalist mode of production. Poulantzas' Pouvoir Politique et Classes Soaiales is the clearest example of this kind of

. theorising. -

(cl Hegelian Marxist, which emphasises mainly the. problems of consciousness, ideology, alienation and so on. This is the tradition of Lukacs, Gramsci and the Frankfurter Schule, of which Jurgen Habermas and Claus Offe are now the most prominent representatives. 3Q"

- 11 -

.\ But whatever their difference.s...._ i:t is quite cJ,.eaL_tl::1<\t aJ).i;.l:).r§.e v:~rsJ9.I}§"'.9;t .. Marxists._ thaor:is.inq ~ trl.§ s.t..ate s.t;.s.r.:t....aw;:-fR::mL . ..a.~1?.:tl1a.l.;I..s_at.ion .'.I} . .1;.§J:lI1S.Q;Lb.a!:3e. al)d S1.:!E§r..stru!;tt.ure. Th~Y-.B;r.§ ID.~.i.nly .c;;o.n9~rned with the rl'!\a­tionf!hips.p.!?tween s.ta1:e and ideo.l.og.¥ \superstructurel and .t:ne-rulin<J.t::lass or Il)OCle o"f prOClUc1:iOn- (bas!'!) :-

It is thus the distinction between state anP~il society transrormed. flito·theOependent relationship between superstruct:ur'e--aIio base which-has remained the cenUa! 'CtLs­dng'uislfiilg t.g?Ct; qf Mq.rxist theorising. F.or ~iU'xis.t.sJ.eyen ~ouaf,'they may admit the "domiiuiiice6r t:he )J".litJ.c.al in ~:t:.i,.og~:t'LQj: qt re,!.l,gJ.on :l,p .J.;SLudCi:r.ismL.the. ~F.e.l.~t;i~e __ a!lto­n0..!!lY· of thE;. S.4JOl·te or .:ili.e .... ~Illutl1i'!J...sO..DQJ. t:i,.on i f!g' . ..Q.~._~ te i'f!!9-._l?conomy .in _cJ'ipitalism. it is • ul ti..ma.tsl.kY· or ~;Ln .i:h.:~ Last :i.Ylstance I the development of the economj t.; nase or moqe .. ilf. .. p.l:..9@.2i.:i,9n ttlat d-eci.§J.Y..el'y......§.hapgs or rlP."t"'y;" ~!1.es

. trie way in which aLL other social relations. underlv.i ru:t the s,:tate .• develop,. ~'hough the mechanistic rela'Cions Detween base anCl superstructure as reified entities as sanctified in Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism are repudiated by nearly all contemporary Marxist theorists in the West, they .still Use the conceptual categories of base and superstructure. They elaborate Marx's own refutqtion of a critical comment on the determinant influence of the development of the base on the devalopment of th.e superstructure:

I seize this opportunity of shortly answering an objection taken by a German paper in America, to my work, 'Zur Kritik der Pol. Oekonomie, 1859.' In the estimation of that paper, my view that each special mode of production and the social relations corresponding to it, in short, .th.at. the economic ,:;trllctJ.J.rF!_o.f. SQ.c.ietv, !.~ othF' :;"e9,"'- QS§J.§ o:rt.wgch !-h~.....i1!.~igiCi!L~Jld P9.!J,t:l9l!1... supersi:ruc_t.~~~ __ ~~E~j..§~..!._~~~._ to which definite social forms of thought corre­Snonrf..,"'Elli3:t:-tile· moc!'l!Cox' i:5rOcrtiCtion determines the character OJ: 1:he_~ociCl,J, ~';i1.~~J,,! arid i'~~ell.E!q1:.~aL .I..if!'l ~e~~aJ.1Y, all this is very true for our own times, filwl.'l:!c1'r mai:eri,i"I fnteresfs--preponderate;"bilt not ·forthe-iiiiddJ,.e ages, :Ln wriicn L:atholici'sm,-- nor ror jl .... heris ,,!-_nd R6'ii:le,Whei'ei'poJ: tii"cs-,--relqnedsuo .... c.llle. . In the first pLace it s'CrJ.Kes one as ell1 oacCthing for anyone to suppose that these well-worn phrases about the middle ages and the ancient world are unknown to anyone else. This much, however, is clear, that the middle ages could not live on Catholicism, nor the ancient world on politics. On the contrary, it is the mode in which they gained a livelihood that explains why here poli­tics, and there Catholicism, played the chief part. For the rest, it requires but a slight acquaintance with the history of the Roman

- 12 -

Republic, for example, to be aware that its secret history is the history of its landed property.31- .

Marx makes here the distinction between the dominance of a specific factor in a particular period, which may be . either (part of) the superstructure or the economic base, and determination, which is always exerted by the 'real base'. I will return to this distinction, which has become quite important in recent Marxist theorising. There. can be little doubt thaT rne aS$~t~QD. of ~ deter­rniiii:r}a' ro.lI3 or -en.,' ecCffi5iii:fC: ha$e in the de·veloomen±.. .of .. ~£ciet-.ies rema~ns a, l.f not .the. ~entfal'clist~2'<I;~ish!-ng tf>n""'" of::Nau.J.S±' r.ruf6ry. Whether Marx himself, if he would have been able to finish the intended book of his general critique of political economy, would have remained tied to this assumption, is a moot point. An indication, that he was not fully certain, may be derived from what he writes in a letter to Kugelmann: 'the development of what follows (with the exception perhaps of the relation of the' different forms of .the state to the different economic structures of society) could be easily accomplished on the basis of it "[the first volume of Capitd - BvdB] ,.32

But that. volume has not been written and the assump­tion of the determining influence of the econo~irb~e -- the coml">· "",tion of productive force;;: """u .Lt:~<1c.i on", nf'

productlQn - has remal.nea runaamental for Ma;xlo:,;i'l~ .tIut loS a "theory of the state, or rather of states and state formation, which departs from this assumption pos~ible?

3. THE LIMITATIONS OF A MARXIST THEORY OF THE STATE

r Marx himself has never systematically dealt with the state, nOr for that matter with social classes. Marxist theory therefore had to make do with the one aspect of the develop­ment and structure of human societies, which Marx did ana- . lyse more or less systematically: the sequences of different modes of production, which he discerned in the history of' mankind, and in much greater detail, the structure of the capitalist mode of production, as analysed particularly in CapitaZ. .

There are thus two ways in which it is possible to derive a Marxist theory of the state from the writings of Marx. One can use all the scattered references to. the state in Marx's early and in his later political writings. That procedure is wrought with difficulties, because it is quite easy to find in different .lorks of ~larx citations which contradict each other. It is therefore also possible to seemingly substantiate divergent theories on the-basis of such citations. But to use only the earlier writings of Marx in which Marx himself had not yet thought out all

- 13 -

the implications of his theoretical analysis of the struc­ture and development of human societies is ~ot satisfactory either.

Therefore, the second way is to be preferred: namely to explicate Marx's model of the development of human societies and assess what it implies about the development of the state. In most writings by Marxists on the state these two alternatives are not clearly spelt out. Usually the latter procedure is implicitly followed, but if difficulties appear, citations from Marx's earlier or more journalistic writings are often used to show that Marx, if he would have been able to finish his programme of research, might have assessed the development and role, of the state in,a different way, more in accordance with what has actually happened in the world. However, to ans­wer the question which this paper poses: is a Marxist theory of the state possible?, the second alternative is the only one that can be followed. One has to ask oneself what Marx's theory of the development and structure of human societies precisely contains. In the preface to The Critique of PoZ·itiaaZ Eaonomy Marx has in a very con­cisemanner explained what he himself considered as: 'The general result which yielded to me and, "once won, served my studies as a guide'. Because that passage is a clear summary of' Marx's theory", showing both its strengths and wea~nesses, it is worth quoting in full:

',In the social production of their life, people enter into relations that'~~e definite, neces­sary, and independent of their wills; relations of production that correspond to a definite stage in the development of their material pro­ductive forces (materieZZe Produktivkrafte). The totality of these relations of production (ProduktionsverhaZtnisse) forms the economic structure of society, the real basis, upon wr.:i.ch arises a juridicl.a.L ana,'poJ.l.tl.ca.L super­structiu'e \ UberbauJ ana to Which correspond cfehiii te forms 'Of social consciousness.' The niOcre-of-producTion or ,'material 'rife conditions (bedingt) the social, political, and spiritual process of life in general. It is not th~ consciousness of people that d~t,epnl.n_es, J:b.'2stimmt) fl'ied'r-'oe:1ng b\1e-; "on ''i:J@' cum:.cary, tneir ,s.ocl.al being tnat'-(ieterrnines their conscio-usness. 'At a'certa-i'ri -s'tage' of tneir aeveJ.opment, 'fh'ei mate-

'rial productive forces of society ,come into contradiction with the existing relations of production or, what is only a juridicial expres­sion therefor, with the property relations inside of which they have ,moved hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces,

- 14 -

th~~_relations turn into their fetters. Then all epoch ~ o:C -s-6Ciar-revol~iii:lon-'s-ets in. ~~ With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure more slowly or rapidly revolutionises itself (waZzt sich ••• um). In considering such upheavals (UmwaZzungen) one must always distinguish between the material up­heaval in the economic conditions of production, to be verified scientifically (naturwissenschaft-. Zich treu zu konstatieren) , and the juridical, .

· poHtic.<U.-I- ;r.e_ligious, artistic', or philosophTcal -'-;; !?hort, ideological':" -foOns_Til Whic.h peop}e become consci(iiis-oCtn~~s conflict and fight it out. - ~-Just-as little as-onewQu[cC,]iidge -an--indi-v ~aual acci6faingt-O-wnat--ne--.c'aflc:l:-es-about hini'self, c·an.-one-·I"urtqe sucnan-epl5C1l-b1:: upheavaJ by 'its consciousness:ratJ:ier this consc~ciusness must, h'n'tne contrary, --bei e-xpiaiii.-ed by-the co-ntraillc...,. . ij.6ils Cff-ma~errcIrl.ne;e.:v:.-1rieex~stJ:h<iJvorhanden) conxl.ict Detween soc~al. prOductive- rorces arid rela­tiOIIS o!_ Production. ~-s~ciaT-formation'never

· goes. under. Defore all product~vF~to:t<ie!L tor wliich . \ j,E-has room lweit 'i:renug1:~t) arp developed~ and

n-eiw. niqnei'-rE!1~1:~Ons.-of prodl:!.c:t;:ion never st~p into place netore. tfieir materiFll conditions of exHftenCehavp.-inciibatedfn 'the wo~-of the-oid society'-i tself. Th~rf?.fnre humanity -always sets :t:t:SP1:'f,-:~:tv'problems' r£ can SOl. VI:! Decause ~ .LOOKed· at more closely, ~1:··w~l.l. al.ways be tClUnainat tne p":'~hlem itsel.f"spr:tng",- tlJ? ufll.y where -themat'erial

· d6nd;tj.nns or J..'Cs I:>uJ..ution. are alrf?;>t1y on nand or at least tn the process'of fo:r.matibri~fnbroad out1.Tries·;--(tne) - aSiaYic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois (biJ.rgerZiche) modes 0-£ production can be designated as progressive epochs in the . economic formation of society. The .bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonist~c form of the social process of production; antago­nistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but an antagonism growing out of the social living conditions 'of indiv,iduals: however, the productive forces developing in the womb ofbourgeols society create at the same time the material conditions for the solution of this antagonism. With this social formatioD·therefore the prehistory of human society comes to.a close. 33 . If pne tries to explicate -the model of dev\,!lopment

implied in this passage, one is confronted with what in modern terminology could be called a system transformation conception of social change. In a given mode of production 'at least during the pre-history. of mankind', and after the original classless soc~eties of pre-history, there inevitably

- 15 -

will arise a situatien in which the ferces ef preductien ceme into. centradictien with the existing relatiens ef pre­ductien, i.e. the class relatiens. These are the_.:r.eJ.atigp.s between these. who. centrel the means er i:)red~.and .these who. aD net. The-~i~· .I;i"lC£llllfLJ:m.llntL±o-. .the first ejther fhro1iQli-'the labeur market, as in capitalism, er threucrh dj Tr~rp.nFwavs-ot 'nhvs.1..C.a.I"" cpe,ti:J on.~a.s..Ul:::-$~-c_api talist mOSlI::",;_ .. uJ: PJ::.~-!.W" Dif:l:erent medes ef preduct~en are

. thus 'aifferent rorms ef expleitatien, different ways in which a deminant class apprepriates surplus value preduced by (a) subservient class (es) . Implied in this cenceptien ef a successien ef medes ef preductien is, ef ceurse, class struggle, but also. the develepment ef preductive ferces (technelegy, educatien, erganisatien ef labeur, etc.) giving increased pewer reseurces to. the deminated classes, which eventually make it pessible fer them to. everthrew the demi­nant class. Class struggle thus ushers in after. a peried ef secial revolutien a new mede efpreductien.

This is clearly a very ceherent medel ef the dynamics ef develepment ef human secieties. Hewever, it is precisely when we begin to. censider secieties in the plural (i.e. state secieties) that the preblems begin. r-tarx' s scheme did net refer to. the.d@-lZ.e..lo:p1llflD,t, J.f_~:i.lilj;~.~.JLJ..n 1:.lJJ;> ;P-l.:li:i:al, ~U1: to'tbe' develepme:qtJU:~nd~ _.t.he human snp.cies as a wh~le. I!e aeniJ:~c:t, _l:lO'tev~r ~ tha t, fJ;'em h:(§l §cq:emgj;.J-_c:_~:t~sciii?­tionef the develepmenf ef capitalism 'a histeric-philesophic theery6C t1'i:Ei'Cfenej;liI.-P§.thevg:r;:y iJ.en!.}.ie: is faieci-tcLtread,

'wnrltever 'Cne historica.l circumstances in which 'it finds it-self '._ could-"be . (;'lec;:fuged ,.~:r.'- " -'"

- Marx, ef ceurse, was aware ef the fact that the trans­fermatien ef a particular mede ef preduction into. a dif­ferent ene did begin in certain areas er ceuntries, but he suppesed that, at' least, with the develepmentef capitalism the precess weuld gradually spread all ever the werld. His writings ~R celenial secieties are a clear illustratien in peint - B~t if,ene wants to. analysis the develepment ef p'articular ceun-.;r~es,. c!l§ is com;rQ.n'Clila w~tn tne reTat~cn­S}..Lk'~?I~,:!:his·-Cjen~ra:L m.e.~elte Hie develcp.!,itent oJ:_sp~~.nc state-scciet~eJi., cr. as Marxists prefer to. say, cf 's.QQia.l :(orgIEltiens' \Ciese tJsC1haftsformationen) • If ene wants to. explain, fcr example, the d~L'i:~t19.Pment.o.f _~tt,s!3ia, as T:r:o.tuS.k.y ~J~InpteQ.iJ;LJ;he first chapter of his .lii.J?k.0ry 0/ the Russ_ian R~tlJllQ1J.I_OJle_l;laa. tP ... J;:eson :tQ. §ometh:h..n..!?' __ HKe nis'~s~':cailed l~gt,l~!1.ev:enanq .cembined deve,le,T;lI11ent. which. :i:!IIl?lies that t'J}!:. d~Yj31op!!ll;lnt ef. th~.~~~. mpd_e Q,LN..Qg£9.tJ&!l_ ha.s been une_Y~,tlwith res?ect to. different pares ef Eurgpe,. and a:ro.r:t:.ijai~. PttJ:u;t:lIl.Qr -Ld.. . .a.rui .:1:11.9.1.::. ?is a censeguence ef this, orie can Clhservl'l in different state secieties 'C! ceexistence' 0:1: ciit':ferelJ.t:..JIl.qrt.e!s· ef productj on as distinguisheu l.i1 :j:he theeretic~l medel cf the~r sequence. . :r"or the'·'same reasen stUct1es 'of' 'ene 'deveLopment ox' centemperary state sccieties in Africa, Asia er Latin America th~.ccncept cf 'dcminance

- 16 -

of thA c~pit~li~t mode of prodQ~~_~as been coined~36 A second dif:t1culty arises, because tne aeve.l.opnient of

c.apitalism has' not proceeded according to the theoretical model. Sdcial revolutions have occurred, but not in capi~ talist countries in which the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production was.most highly developed. Revolutions occurred primarily in agri­cul tural dynastic states in the periphery of the capitalist world market, where capitalist classes had hardly been formed, but in which communist parties have used Marxist ideology in order to mobilise the population at large and have ~7en able to acquire state power through the use of arms. Such anomalies in the theory made it necessary to

'discover in ~1arx' s own theory an explanation for the remark­. able survival capacity of the capitalist mode of production. It is no wonder that one then arrives at a conception of capitalism as a system, able to continually reproduce itself. The ciearest expression of this kind of Marxist theory can be found in the work of a number of French Marx­ists, in particular that of Althusser, Balibar and Poulantzas. As Hindess and Hirst have said of Althusser and Balibar's conception of the capitalist mode of production: it becomes an eternity. 'The specific contradictions of the capitalist mode of production involve a tendency, not towards dissolu­tion, but precisely to the reproduction of these contradic-tions' .38 .

According to Marx the capitalist system would eventually perish from its own immanent contradictions, but for some latter-day Marxists the system has ihbuilt mechanisms for self-maintenance (reproduction), such as the state, or the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie.

This systems transformation conception of the develop­ment of Eur~~ean societies can be quite simply represented as follows: .

----------------------------------------------------~) time ___ , ~ __ I _I ~_I ---,f7? Mode of Pro­duction I (Antique)

~1ode of Pro­duction II (Feudal)

l-1ode of Pro­duction III (Capitalist)

period of transition social revolution

I I mode of production as coherent .' system' with an internal 'logic' of its own _____ .JI

- 17 -

The Asiatic mode of production, which Marx believed. to have already developed before the slave mode of produc­tion of Europ'ean antiquity, does not fit into this linear succession of modes of production. ,+,.he cnnge]:l1;~9n_ of. i'1n Asiatic mode of production prQv_t~st JiL oJJi.1.di.~.bJ.or.k.,..:I:.or the- con'stJ::'ucTion' or "-a:-'-iess' 1!;urocentric t_ J!lul tiJinear thEilory ofcnedeVelbJ5fu.eiit Ol: moi:i~s <;>:Cpr.Q~uct:IJ?n, iI!. nllJ!l.a!!" b!~J:9.ry. one of the reasons whv ~iscussiQ~ about the Asiatic mode of prOdUCl:~On was suppres.sed tn roe Sovil'!.1: Un,!.on_ in ,the. th~r­t:ies is -that ~l: undermines 'the idea of the 'unity of world nis;::ory-;~me -linear- ccinc~,DtIQn:. Qi . prgg-rest§.mgkl;!e;'"itnossi­ble toaepict --the' Soviet Union a!? .l.e.adu}g mankind on the' roaa,-towa.ras'tfle-neCessarya"i-r1val of a world-wide class­ress sodE;!ty: 0xre-can -easily see how useful. 'this"concep­tion ~s as legitimating ideology of the Soviet imperial state.,

Now no matter whether the capitalist mode of produc-' tion is conceived as an eternity, if left on its own, or as-a figuration, which because of its immanent dynamic will ultimately dissolve to make place for the more advan­ced socialist,society (fot which the development of produ9tive forces under capitalism forms an important precondition), it is clear that in this conception only forces making up the mode of production (i.e. productive forces and relations of production) can explain 'why hUman societies develop in the direction, which they in fact develop into. J;n the Marxist developmental scheme there ," is no room for rorces 'coniiElctea wi th statei-':tormatron -or \ the ~suPelrstrlic·l:u:te . :tn -general, wnwh have a struc-Eured mpa-Ci:.'cill ,-lTe'1'l:±-~-eCi..-'±o1ror-sociai -deve"L6pmeIff. -As J3alibar has formULated 1:n~s distin.ct~on netween static 'dominance' and qynamic 'determination': 'To avoid misunderstanding: the 'existence of the state apparatus realises in a "trans­formed form" the political domination of the dominant class,,_

.' even though this political domination in no sense originates £romthe state. The origin of political domination can only, be the relation of forces within the class struggle and in particular, in the last instance in the "economic" class struggle, .in exploitation. ,40 '

As Elias has pointed out, in the Marxist theory -admittedly a great advance on earlier theories - the develop­ment of human societies is seen as a structured process, but it is only the development of productive forces and relations of production, that is seen as structured, all other influ­ences - of the state or of ideology,- are seen as random or accidental. 41 Seen,in this way, it becomes possible to _ reconciliate Marx's statements on the influence of the ~r.nte

'or the superstructure on specific hisEor~~~~ prnc~s~~ w~th his own rn6aeL Ol: the development or moaesol: oroduction. -

'Thp.roLe '.'f the state is then a contin.sent one wh;~h . " only, ,1'):1 ,ex,cep,tionai Ci't-cunista:n.ces [such "" 'Bonapart~sm ,; as anaIvsecCip----r.h-e:':l!;r.cihteenthSrumaire of LOui8f1ap-;;~;"on

- 18 -

plc!y's an indenendent role i]1 the .Qevelopll\pnt Qf ~i:L 'iiP~cific Call 01::r." • ,-. - But state,formation. as_.an on~goingprocess .. or .. the. com­

petition between states are in Marxist theorising not seen as struqtured' processes moving into a particular direction. The Marxist scheme of development remains that of sequences of modes of production,. il1 '£lhich the .~_t.,¥J'(Jd_..dJlnamif?_.i.s onl v the" Lc;:~m,tr.f!dictq±yJ ;.-",', at:;lOI.L .Q.e.:t:w.§.eI.L..ti1.!Ld~veiOoment Of oroductive forceS- and i-he de"ei'ooment of relgj;,:!..o.ns .. r>f nroduction - .the m';'nner'in whicn a rUi'inq~iaSS- appropriates surolus va 1, 1.1'3. ., '.., ' .. ... . .,,'. -

To again quote Marx himself, a famous passage from Capital, Vol. III, Chapter 47:

The specific economic form, in which unpaid sur­plus-labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire forma­tion of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific oolitical form. rt is always the direct relationshio of the owners ' of -tne C[iffidit'i6ris'Cf!:-prodUcl::::Lon· to t:ne duect: pro­ducers· - a ·reiat:~on a.LWC1V;:; nd-cuL'cliiycOrre:;:;pona-, :i'na to a aeunitestate in- the 'u.:lvei.ioomeDi::"OT. , the

, ineulods ,of,laboui" and therebi its sociaiprodUC:" ; hvity - 'whicnreve§ls-t:he irrneril!o§j:-secr~h.~~e

J'l:a:CIeri 'I.iasys-or the entire social ,:,cruceu>:e. and wun-rt' ,1:,j)e, pol 1j-...icaL,;fox-ID"ox-the'-relation of-

, s,civereig:nt:'Li:md_ deJ;l..endencEh.. ; n sJiort, the co,£res­ponding·specific form of the stnte. Tnis does m:rt:"prevt::ll't the" same economic bas~s - the same from 'the standpoint of its main conditions - due' to innumerable different .empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc., from showing infi­nite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances.

This passage is not quite clear, since Marx asserts on the one hand that 'it is always the direct relationship of the owners of the cOBditionsof production to the direct produ­cers etc.' and on the other hand that 'the relationship of rulers and ruled ••. in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element'. The first sentence implies that the economic base determines not only the overall development of soc ie­ties, but also 'the specific form of the state' at any given moment. But the second sentence could be read as a fo~uiation of the relative autonomy of the state. However, it is also possible to interpret it as referring only to class relations, 'not to the state. In that case, there

- 19 -

would not be a contradiction between the two sentences. But no matter ,which interpretation one may prefer, the passage may again make clear that for Marxists, particular­ly when they are studying the development of specific societies, the relation between base and superstructure

/qonstitutes a difficult problem. ~j,th the assumption of \',a mechanistic one-wav relationship one cannot account for the complex~hes arid otner--qontradICtgry. t.end!,!Dcies ".j n -

'\~Ci::.uaI-PjstoE~t!iil j" ... ucl::::>::;es" J.11 "u", I:'J.~,-,tice of research, rspecia~~y when-aeaJ.J.ng w~th politics or ideology, the base-superstructure conceptualisation constitutes a problem. But rather than abandoning this conceptualisation and the implied determination - even though pushed back to the last instance - Marxists are developing all kinds of come­to-the-rescue concepts such as '~Qjatio~' or constructions such as the dist:i;nction between 'e!om~no.u.::e' - which in a particular mode of production may De exercised by; the super­structure - and 'oQrerm~_~~ti~p', which is always by the base. One of the most ingenJ.o.us so~utions to the problem has been put forward by Maurice Godelier. 42 After having again con­firmed that ''rhe f_up~amental~_iscovery of Marx is that of tOe role of_ trc1nsrOrmal:J.un~ in l:ne lll~_~eria_~base Q). §Q£~e­t!.e~_,J;,.Ql:.._l.Inde..£:!l:i:1uu.Ll1'il cne. 109'i,~ 0:'; forlll~, o~_ soc;i,al life ~nd_the logic o±~eir evolutions', ne goes on to say l:hat bal>l:! dnd sU!:'cJ.'sl:rUC1:url::! aL"I::! o.J: t.1::1l mistakenly conceived of as institutions., :aut it is not a distinction between 'eco­nomic' and 'politicaJ' institutions, or between 'material' and 'immaterial' (l-deas), but a Ili"'t:inction be;tween f1!l:l9-tiODS. In hunting and collectinq ;:ovc.;:.Letie;;, ruJ. example, :QPt?,age i~~"'.l:i()-n5.l<c:tv,,: 'i:~Ef.U!lct~oh' of' reLlt10ns ,I;lL ,';.c9duc-

: t1J r)D. A lineaqe struc1:ure as . an ins,l:~1:ut:ion"~'c::an~ tJloQ.:t;!,on a1: the same t:iJ1l~ 'as base ane! a's s'uoerstructure. 'In G~k c1Ey __ ~~ioites_.£Ql.ittc<;i,l re '-atj~ms_ fllnC1:J,Q~_.~§, J!?_J,.~Uons of produc:!:;t.0n. Th,a t expl.ains why pOH tics ,,~§l 9PIDi,ruull....1JL the slave mode of -pr'oaiict.foii"'oT"i>iiropean . Antiqui ty: 'Only wi t11in the C'ap-iEaList'moae 6rproffiKn::t<5n"ao'~e, _a:,iffe;:.e~f7.!l.nct;iQns at,l>i:i"e and superstruC'EiTf'E!'exl.si: "lil The "-Fr.m Qt, di • ."t-i,nct {nsEitut~Ons': --:G'Or' GoaeJ.l,er l:Ill::! relation betwP"n base. "Uld fjlri!2er:;n::ruc~.i.S &.n §.~~rl::!;:;Si:on.-O.J: __ ac-nLei:ar.q(I'y_ 0..1:_ .f.unPtion~ ana cnl::retore ('I:1.so .oJ: a hierarc!w of' structural ..ca!J..sal~l:J.es I

GOC1eIler thus· dan' e$capC [rom'lul:: Jauger UJ: reTficatiori~---­which the concepts 'base' and 'superstructure' as construc­ti~ metaphors are very susceptible to. He also can account for the dominant role in previous modes of production of institutions which in capitalism belong to the superstructure. It should be. said, however, that in Godelier' s interpretation of Marx's conceptual scheme and model of development the con­cept of function is not terribly clear. As far as I can see, he uses the concept of function as it is used in struc­tural-functionalism or-systems theory, namely to describe 'functions' which particular institutions or structures ful­fil for the maintenance and smooth "functioning' of a mode o£'-pro-

- 20 -

duction system. But this makes it difficult to explain the transformation of ,one mode of production into another. Th.Q~g!l.hjf! __ go_§lEL ll.9j:,_.gt:!Cl.:I., explicitly with this .problem,it is clear that for G~delier only the forces related 'to the ' 'production' function can explain the structure of develop-ment of hurnan societies. " ',' .... , ' , "':,' ':

, There are~a.e. f~s IkJlow.no Marxists who see statefor-j,~ !!li;!..tion as"stiudtured'procesEres movinq ~ntOa'''ci:!rer",'l:I':tcn 'I'l::t'= ' rection.-vlIi::.nl.n tJie -Marx:Lst!:icheme "" no matter now :tar re.,;· movea :from ,a'mech~nis,tic, ,reif ied interpretation it' may' be ,used ..; ,0neliai:1 t6> stick to the conception . of ,a 'relati'o~'sli:r;p between base ahd superst:t:1Uctu.re, which i!3 u,n.wzd?:!Kf1'i1LUiitliih the whole, of the 'prehistory' of, .mankind"and'which',deter#':, "0

mines the structure of development of societies. Fr9rn ' tl:) :ifl .. ~,naJ"ys:i,§,._QJ :1;:4e. ,~.§Irx.i§ t conc:e'fltual' !?,c4em~

an9 moCIet of g,eqyences , of' modes of productinn, as i.l<atEmnining t,~,? ~,o~s, -of§qciet::L.esici.h'ii the' str\tcitu:r:e of ,their <:leVe,lup:', nient,it. t'ollowl" t:l'!at a, Ma:rxist theorv of state J:ormation -at 'inr( 'Leri§'§J . .i,~..a:clc;1.'~'!=.!.QTim..ent. gi ~rca t~,_ ,:", T§, not 'poss ible. Elsewhere I have demonstratE:!a some of'i:.he problems'that .

, Marxists have enyountered, leading them to faulty interpre­tations, in attemfi:ing to account for'state formation a:;r,<m on-going procesf! ." 3 To admit., i:p.e reJ.a.t::i-v§!_ a-.t,ttonRII}Y 0t: ~j;;gt..e

, ~o:rmadoll, .3.~ a "pr.<?'i~ss :wi.the fL'pp,r't,icqla,r.structure 'and dir§.c­t:ion;, CJ.nd~:ith spE;c:ific phases iI?: the same way ,as tne seqn§llce qf !)1Q<:les of production is seen as a .l?tJ;':qCtured proce!?S! ,is to go beiy6naMarx, - ana Jl.farxism •. It implies that the con­cepti,lal, 'scl1enie, ,Of.' base and ',suDerstructu17e:witli'1i1L 'the ifl.lE.-!-ie.Q,. 'd9miga!lCe' . re!atiQ.:ll§. an,d "d.e.:t.e.l:min.gj:;i,.Qns.-'oj:~h.....no' longer be, used. ",_" " "tan it' be denied that this. conceptual scheme is the

most fundamental distinguishing characteristic of Marxism? It is d~ff~Cu.lt to, stop. 'usi,ng i1:" sinc!,! it fulfils".ve~yirnportarit functions for guiding political practice ."In-what for Marxists :r.:ema:i,ns 'essentlal- the relation"oetween theory aiidpractice' - it may even appear ,to be indispensable, because'how else could one identify what is 'basic', what are the determining or. dominant factors to be blamed for exploitation and aliena­tion and which have to be,either,eradicated or brought under conscious' control? For ~iststo. .ac.ce..2t that it. is still an

; 0,pEUJ. guestig.n wheth.ei-iR.'J:.9.c.c ~tiere, :i.§. .Q.Il§ • baf;l;Lc' p~QC,e9,~_':' m.a ..;. t,e.r:La r ,pl;'o,t1~c::t::i0!:l. and';i:.~l?r9du,cti.Qn. - wh~c,h .. C:0I)-cii,tions ,allotl},er

:' PFoc,eJ'lses, wl:le .ahaa't:V~c'I iTl h1¥!1an h,il?torY'.'l-Lquld .:iJ.!ml.y1ch~t t.he, theOl:',Y. ,to S.tUClg ,J;lQ],it:)-9al l?ra,<::.i:ic,E3hO longer-: exist!!.,

But does, the impossibi.lity ot ,a .tneory or state formation also imply that a Marxist theory of the aapitaZist state is impossible? After all, if one only deals with Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of produc­tion, would it then not be possible to develop a theory of. the role and functions of the state for the prQductionand reproduction of the capitalist mode of production? !~,is" oJ,.cQg,rse, ,Eossible to develop' <:I. theory of the role .0fthEl

- 21 -

state on the basis of a Marxist desr.<iption of capitalism as --a lsystem'f: One tfibll arrives at an ana1.vsl.s at tne role of thesta1::e in wn'J.cll tfle state iOl':.l.easin~v becomes tne central. agent for' the mairitenance o"t the capi caust -'mode 01: 'l?l::odi1ci':iori. ·'1'niS. 1a '!'ne q:tst o'l p~"c"Cicaflv'aU: recent Marxist analyses ot- the capitalist state. '.MJIJl:i~.!1Q .. _.f.Qr example, tries to delllonstrate that J! capitaiist rul,ing

! class' $tJ,11 e:lCl.sts,contra~ to the. conqeotion ox" a:'~p~ura­lity of politl.cal. elites, contesting for political power, ~s' tIm'1iominant school. l.n pOHtl.cal sCl.ence tedcn,ei,s ~ 'PlJu~antzas' uses a niore abHract metnocf of' analysing the development and role of the state, in which he tries to specify the functions of different political and ideologi­cal apparatuses of the state for the maintenance and repro-

, duction of the capitalist mode of production as a system. Reading the writings of Marxists like Althusser, Balibar, Poulantzas and most of the contributors to the British jour­nal Economy and Society, one is reminded of the endless con­ceptual refinements in the work of Talcott Parsons and many other structural functionalists and systems theorists. They are hardly concerned with the understanding and explana­tion of "the development of particular human societies and their interrelationships, but spend their intellectual energy in endless refinements of. specifying the meaning of and internal relations between empirically more or less' free floating concepts: 'We attempt to determine the theore­tical status and validity of certain abstract general con­cepts within the Marxist theory of modes of production but not to analyse particular concrete social formations or par­ticular conjunctures,.44 In that sense Miliband's analvF:is is to be preferred, because ne at"'ieast tries to test d;!r­tain pr!=>l?osl. dons der'i ved from a 'theoretical conception of the role of: the state in tne capl.tal1.st:. mode or production, tlirouj:Jh anaJ:y~is .o:!= what in tact has na1?pened in American and, WSl::;l:"~rn .eurC?,pean soci.etieS a±.ter tne Second,"t>?o1:,ca. Wi'I;:. However, Miliband is less concerned with testing the Marxist ,±1i·eo~y"t1iiffiw:rEIi. pr6vi:ttl.:ng -U.s valiOl Li . Aha;' 01 course, i.~~ 1I.d.ll.c'litX. ~S. ec.siry a~mciris1.:rd-1:ed,. Decause ·e~amples .. 6f the irrf:'lue.n<:,€! of cani tall.st entrepreneurs Dr of employers org"anisations" U~i govermrien£puhcfes can",easl.J.,Y i)<:: pri:,duced.

In discussions among Marxists the terms 'government' and 'state' are not clearly distinguished. For, example, 'state intervention' or 'government intervention' in the economy are used interchangeably. But this is confusing. Sta.:te j:lnq q<;mermnent should be clearly distinguished. We can speak c;fcem:ral, provincia:!' arid ItJt:aJ. governments, which are. all parts of the political organisation of state-

. societies, belong to the state apparatus, as Marxists pre­fer to say. But to speak of states is to refer to societies in which stable central monopolies of violence and taxa­tion have been established and which include an extended territory with a number of towns and other local communities.

- 22 -

Norbert Elias has introduced the generic concept of 'att~~k and defence units', within which internal violence is con­"tt6Il-eaariCi'wnUm. are organised for the ,use of violence

-;-3.ga.inS''E'dUrer 'sllcn-unTtsr:45" 'One can 'fnen -al.stiiiguIsn- -­'between hunting and collecting bands, tribes, village and city-states, feudal units, dynastic sta,tes, nation-states and so on. Another source, of confusion is to regard state formation as the process whereby stateless societies deve­lop into state societies. Once ,established, states are then seen as in their essential characteristics unchanging entities, making it possible to speak of, the state and to ask for a definition of the state. But :i,t is more realis­tic andtheoretic:ally, fruiHuL to S!29C!k"<?f "state 'XOrmaHon a'S an ,Oll-going procasis 'in wfiicn distinct phases arid' contra.,. aictci~ r.endencies trot example o11gdrcfflsafion'versus -d-emocratisatIon or central.iiation versus decentralisation) can be observed. It"ii ulerefore misleading to speak of ~~~ roZe of ~e st~t~. "States,~~iespeCl:ricfi9urat1£"'xllL.9f intercft:!Eddaent numan oe1ngs- :"1; ,!lure abstract 1:.erms~ com,.. p,os.~'t:~. uuus '6f#n-!~h 'qovernmentl:; are oIle" ()( fhe CO!1!lm~ent elements or par1:.s.

1f one p~dls off the layers of abstractions from what is offered as Marxist theory of the capitalist state, one is left with what in fact are not much more than a fe", rather simple assertions; that there exists a capitalist ruling class; that there is 'an inherent logic of capitalism, which forces entrepreneurs to exploit workers; that the state fulfils different kinds, of repressive, ideological and economic functions for the maintenance of capitalism, both domestically and abroad (imperialism). Whether one may call such a theory Marxist is a matter of doubt, because for Marx a theory should at least be dialectical, explain

'movement, change or development. ~_tqeory,q~th~_,~~Eital!st mode of, 1?rodu~ as a, svstem Vl,ojIld be quite cont.radictory -';'0 tn,e l,!IO~t: ,fungpmenta)"<iS§Uropj;ions of' .t1ai~ '"§ "own 't1:iot!<tllt. And in that sense Marx was quite'r"l.gnt,. It is precisely the fact that Marx saw human societies as structured pro­cesses, Which constitutes one of the most important theore­tical advances in our understanding of ,the development of human societies that he'has contributed.

'However, both in Marx's own model of the development of human societies and his analYSis of the capitalist mode of production very important observable realities are not taken into account. ~.rere is no. theory 9f state, formati~n

i as, a I?roc~ss", rel~ti vel.-y all~(:)J:o~ous~ b!li<. "in-r.~rconn~ctea, wJ-~h 'the a~v:eldpmenE 0,:1;., mode:;; of proQuction. 4 7 There 1S no , ,theory ot the iimnanent reguYaritiesoCinterstate relations

as a process of monopolisation with a similar dynamic as the competitive process between feudal lords which has led to the, formation of dynastic states in'1ilestern Europe. 48 There is also no explanation of the, similarities in the

- 23 -

development of so-called capitalist and so~called socialist states. 49 Because the l~arxist model only considers the internal dynamics of the development of societies as struc­tured, it cannot account for such similarities, which are to a larae extent produced precisely by compe.ti tion between states. S There is therefore neither a satisfactory' theory of nationalism in the Marxist literature. 51 As a last point, there is no satisfactory theory of power in Marxism, because only power resources arising out of the economic base are seen as structured, not the power resources aris­ing out of control over means of violence, means of orien­tation, means of organisation or means of taxation. l-iarx deals with other sources of power mainly in his historical and journalistic writings. In his model they are seen as incidental, as arising from unique historical configura­tions, not as structured in the same manner as the power resources arising out of the 'economic' base, wh~ch deter­mine the development of power balances between social classes and the forms of the state. Bu't if one does riot begin w.-i:!:h the assumption ofa pluriformityof 'power resources, it is 'impossible to achieve a more realistic understanding of the development of states and of the internal patterns of power distribution between social classes and between rulers and ruled in different state societies. S2

Thus we may conclude that a Marxist theory of state formation and interstate competition is impossible and that a Marxist theory of t.he capitalist state is only possible if. one is interested primarily in the internal consistence - the syntaxis rather than the semantics - of the theory, not if one wants to use the conceptual scheme and. model of developmentsjo explain the development of.par-ticular state societies. Only when the Marxist concep-tualisation in terms of base and superstructure and there­fore also the conception of the ultimate determination of the structure and development of human societies by sequen- . ces of modes of production is transcended, does it become possible to further advance the understanding of the deve­lopment of human societies.

The development of states and of modes of production including class formation should be seen as two interconnec­ted aspects of one overall process, processes which go hand in hand and which cannot be reduced to each other. S4 Thus one cannot exolain and .. understand state formation as a process without clearly connecting it to the development of productive forces and relations of production, including class struggles, and one cannot understand and explain the development of modes of production without connecting it to the immanent structure of the process of state formation, for which Norbert Elias orovides a model in the second . volume of his Uber den P~ozess der ZiviZisation.

Marx himself can be considered a transitional figure

i

- 24 -

in the process of the development of knowledge, in the sense that his problems were anchored in philosophy, but that he tr:ie.9 ,to j:illcLtne. a1ll3We.r1'Lj:Q, _I;l:i,§, q):le.stion.5._tl;l;rPJ'!9'h_.i'1-.,$QJe.n­tific study of the immanent (materialist) dynamic of the development of human societies. Because of the latter the importance of his work can hardly be overestimated as a contribution to a more realistic understanding of the development of human societies and human life. But his manner of conceptualising social development still betrayed philosophical influences. Marx did see that human history was a blind process, not c,ontrolled or planned by any Qut­side metaphysical force nor by specific human beings. As he wrote on the first page of the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis NapoZeon: 'Men make their own history, bu~, they do not make it just as' t:nev_i:iJ~ase,-tili,do hot, make it under dircumstani::es chosen by themselves, but U"riCiei' ciYcfumsf'ances directly encountered, given 'and t:ransmit:'tedI'f6irC tne 'past' • "teE';. hist:ory""was- nor a:' randornsuci::'ession or-ev~nt:s";-:6ut contained an order, a structure of its own, as conceptualised by Marx in tho:! model Qutlined in the introductiQn to the Critique of ,Po Zit.'iaaZ Economy. Marx was nQt yet able to take sufficient distance from his Qwn problematic to. see that history as a structured process dQes nQt move necessa­rily in the directiQn which one considers desirable on philosophical grounds, i.e. the liberation of human reason and creativity. As Elias has PQinted Qut, because Marx lived in a period in which industrialisatiQn had just begun and people experienced the state and a pacified 'civil' sQciety as selfevident, he emphasised the destructive, effects on human reason and creativity, which industriali­satiQn and exploitation in the capitalist manner implied, rather than the destructive effects Qf state formation.

Is it a cOincidence." tl;lat the mQst impQrt'ant ,anar-:­'chist theorists, wh6did see the latter bUt all "too ' clearly',' like Bakunin and :K:i:oPQtkin,were"educ,it~p.:;;:,~ in the first PQlice state to. develop, Tsarist Ru~isla? But Marx, living in England, tQQk states much mQre for granted as secQndary, derivative phenQmena, which were indispensable Qnly to maintain exploitative class relations. What public (state) functiQns WQuld remain necessary in cQmmunist societies CQuld Qnly be answered by scientific study, as Marx 'has said in his Critique of the Gotha,Pro­gramme. Marx therefore continued to. see the capitalist, state primarily as 'the cQmmittee for managing the common affairs of the whole bouregoisie', as a PQlitical system Qf repressiQn, used fQr furthering the interests of the capitalist ruling class, until the prQletariat would acquire great PQWer resources thrQugh the articulatiQn Qf the con­tradiction between prQductive fQrces and relatiQns Qf pro­duction, which would have to develop in capitalism. Because of the appeal of Marxism in this respect and for different

- 25 -

kinds of political and psychological reasons which I have tried to explain elsewhere,55 we now observe a deadlock in Marxist theorising. The present situation of Marxism is reminiscent of the period, in which scholastic i.ntellec­tuals attempted by all kinds of come-to-the-rescue con­cepts and constructions, to preserve the integrity ofa framework of interconnected concepts and models of reality which had become obsolete. 56 Only because the Harxist theory still fulfils very important orienting and legiti­mating functions is it still so powerful also among social scientists. 57 But the impossibility of developing a satis­factory theory of state formation and the functions of states may lead them beyond Marx.

The work of Norbert Elias opens up that possibility. His research into state formation processes provides a model of the structure of state formation, which may be compared wigH 11arx's model of the sequences of modes of production. His analysis of court society and 'absolute' dynastic states may be compared to Marx's analysis of the immanent dyg~ic and structure of the capitalist mode of production. The task before us is to synthesise the12 models of Marx and Elias into an overall model 0.£ the -structure of the development of societies.

Such a synthesis may also clarify the notion of 'rela­tive autonomy' of processes of state formation, civilising, the development of knowledge or of modes of production. To speak of 'relative autonomy' implies that one can dis­tinguish these pr6cesses, but not separate them from each other. It implies that we should not split up social reality into separate sectors, whether in terms of the economic, political, social or of base and superstructure. To speak of the 'relative autonomy' of specific processes is thus very different from thinking in terms of the rela­tive autonomy of such sectors or 'structures'. The rela­tive autonomy of state formation has to be clearly distin­guished from the relative autonomy of the state,as discussed :l.n Marxism, and from the conception of separate sub-systems as used in sociology and political science.

A synthesis will not be possible on the basis of a conception of development in terms of systems transforma­tion. But our present means of conceptualising make it indeed very difficult to deal more adequately with the problem of continuities and discontinuities in the develop~ ment of human societies than it' is being ,done in the systems model, implicit also in Marx's work:

However, if we use Norbert Elias' concept of human figurations, consisting of interdependent human beings, which are bound to each other in specific ways,60 it becomes possible to theoretically distinguish different 'phases' in the way in which such human bonds change - whether rela­ted to production or other 'economic' functions people fulfil

- 26 -

for each other, or to 'state' functions and interdependen­ces. To distinguish such 'phases' is what both Marx's model- of~ sequences, of~~modes ~70f:~ production~and-~El:ias+~ model of state formation attempt to do. 61 It goes~without saying that in both cases much more comparative empirical analysis of specific figurations is needed before a theoretical synthesis can be made. In some cases 'revolutions' are convenient demarcation points to distinguish one phase from another - as long as they are not reified into different. 'systems'. So, for example, does the French revolution mark the transition from dynastic into nation-states. Yet, nation-states began to develop before the French revolution - in France, England, the Netherlands - while dynastic states continued. to exist long beyond it - in Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, not to speak of Iran, Ethiopia or Thailand. In other words, if one analyses specific human figurations one has to see the continuitt~s even within discontinuous changes such as revolutions.

We thus corne to see human history and society as moving interconnected. figurations of interdependent states, ruling and ruled groups, social classes, established and outsider groups63 and in the last instance, of interdepe~~ent human beings, both in the plural and in the sin<:fular.

- 27 -

FOOTNOTES

1. For this way of formulating the problem see Norbert Elias, 'Sociology of Knowledge: New Perspectives'" Soaiology, Vol. 5, Nos'. 2 and 3, 1971. In his Ubero den Proozess dero Zivilisation, Vol. II, he has demon­strated that the answer should be in the affirmative. To avoid misunderstanding: the term 'relatively auto­nomous' implies that state formation is connected with other distinctive processes. A certain level of eco­nomic and technological development is one of the conditions for the establishment of relatively stable central', monopolies of violence and taxation by dynas­ties, .just as the formation of dynastic states is one of. the conditions for industrialisation. But they do not necessarily follow from each other: theyare'rela-

: ti vely autonomous' from each other.

2.' The State 'is a product of society at a certain stage of its development' as Engels wrote in the conclu-ding chapter of his Oroigins of Family, Proivate Prooperoty and State. And: 'Capitalism unified the nation-state' as David Horowitz (Imperoialism and Revolution, London 1969, p. 42) paraphrases The Communist Manifesto: 'Independent, or but loosely connected, provinces with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one 'government, one code of laws, one national class­interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff'.

3. George Lichtheim, Maroxism: an historoiaal and aroitiaal study, London 1961, p. 373.

4. 'A good introduction can be found in 'Der staatsmono­polistischer Kapitalismus: EinfUhrungen in marxistische . Analysen.aus ,aer DDR, Frankreich und der Sowjet Union'. Frankfurt/Main 1972. See also Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, New York 1966, who stress the increasing importance of civilian government and military expenditures for the 'absorption of surplus'.

5. Hamza Alavi, 'The State in Post-colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh', New Left Review, No. 74, July-August, 1972, pp. 59-81;, John Saul, 'The State in Post-colonial Societies: Tanzania', The.SoaiaZist Registero, London 1974, pp. 349-372. Special issues on the post-colonial state in Afroiaan Review of PoZitiaaZ Eaonomy, January/April 1976, No.5, see especially Colin Leys, 'The Overdeveloped Post-colonial State: a re-evaluation', pp. 39-48. Also Colin Leys ,'Un4erodeve Z~ opment in Kenya, London 1975.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

- 28 -

Nartin Shaw, 'The Theory of the State and Politics', Eaonomy and Soaiety, Vol. 3, No.4, 1974, p. 429.

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Peking edition 1972, p.27.

S. ,Stuurman, 'Stalinisme, en anti-communisme i , Amsterdams Soaiologisah Tijdsahrift, Vol. I, No.4, pp. 110-141. Stuurman speaks of a burea,ucratic class, because it refers to a group of people which stand in a particular relation (control) of the means of pro­duction; which have a standard of living, based on surplus appropriation from the working mass of the population and which is not subject to any form of democratic control, and therefore more and more acquires Cj. specific way of thinking and living.

See e.g. Theda Skocpol, 'Prance, Russia, China: a structural analysis of social revolutions', Compara­tive Studies in Soaiety and History, Vol. 18, No.2, April 1976~ pp. 175-210; Ellen K. Trimberger, 'A Theory of Elite Revolutions', Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 7, No.3, 1972. As is the case with Barrington Moore these scholars are Marxian rather than Marxist in the sense that they use 1·1arxian categories il':\ their analyses ,·lithout iden­tifying themselves clearly as Marxists in the sense of belonging to a specific political denomination.

Perry Anderson, Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism arid 'Lineages of the Absolute State, London 1974; Tom Nairn, 'l>larxism and the Modern Janus', New Left Review, No. 94, November-December 1975; Immanuel Wallerstein, The ."fodern World System: 'Capitalist agriaulture and the origins of the European world-eaonomy in the six­teenth aentury, New York 'and London 1974.

, '\ See e.g. R.A. Nisbet,' The Soaiologiaal Tradition, New York 1966 and J. Goudsblom, Soaiology in the Balar/ae, Oxford 1977.

Nicos Poulantzas, 'The Capitalist State: a reply to ~liliband and Laclau', New Left ReviebJ, No. 95, January-February 1976, p. 82.

Ralph !-liliband, The S'tate in Capitalist Soaiety, London 1969, p. 5. The explicit polemic against the 'dominant pluralist view' is to be =ound on pp. 2-7, but it sets the tone for the book as a whole.

- 29 -

14. Nicos Poulantzas, 'The Problem of t.he Capitalist State', New Left Review, No. 58, November-December 1969; Ralph Miliband, 'The Capitalist State - reply to Nicos Poulantzas', New Left Review, No. 59, January-February 1970; Ralph Miliband, 'Poulantzas and the Capitalist State', New Left Review, No. 82, November-December, 1973; Ernesto Laclau, 'The Speci­ficity of the poiitical:the Poulantzas-Miliband debate', Eaonomy and Soaiety, Vol. 4, No.1; Nicos Poulantzas, 'A Reply to Miliband and Laclau', New Left Review, No. 95, January-February 1976.

15. Even the Marxist theory of imperialism was until quite recently not concerned with such problems. Lenin's theory was primarily an attempt to explain the failure of the Socialist International to prevent the First World War, and for that reason mainly concerned with 'monopoly capitalism' and with the effects of imperial competition on capitalist states themselves. For an interesting critical discussion of recent Marxist theories see Benj~in Cohen, The Question of ImperiaZism: the PoZitiaaZ Eaonomy of Dominanae and Dependenae, New York 1973. He does not discuss, however, the most sophisticated work in this new tradition, that of samir Amin e.g. Neo-CoZoniaZism in West Afriaa, Harmondsworth· 1973 or L'AaaumuZation a Z'EaheZZe MondiaZe, Paris 1971.

16. An article on 'Hegel and the State' (in KapitaZistate, Nos. 4-5, summer 1976) characteristically begins 'Can a highly abstract theory of the state advanced by a German philosopher a century and a half ago be of more than antiquarian interest to modern Marxists, most of whom are absorbed in practical political struggles?' One is tempted to ask in reply: 'Can a highly abstract theory of modes of production advanced by a German philosopher a century and a half ago be of more than antiquarian interest to·modern social scien­tists, most of whom are absorbed in empirical research of practical problems?'

17. ShlomoAvineri, The SoaiaZ and PoZi.tiaaZ Thought of KarZ Marx, Cambridge 1968, pp. 8-9.

18. See e.g. Isaiah Berlin, KarZ Marx, His Life and Environment, London 1948; David McLellan, KarZ Marx, His Life and Thought, London 1973; Fritz J. Raddatz, Kal'Z Marx, Eine PoZitisahe Biographie, Hamburg 1975.

19. Bertel OIlman, AZienation, Marx's Conaeption of Man in CapitaZist Soaiety, Cambridge 1971. Ollmann also

- 30 -

pOints out that Marx's conception of human nature has remained implicit in his writings: ' ••• he was only partially and intermittently aware of his own [views on man]' (p. ix).

20. For the.episode see McLellan,· op. cit., Chapter 1, 'Journalism'. '

21. See Duncan Forbes, ',Adam Ferguson and the Idea of Community', Edinbu~gh in the Age of Reason, Edinburgh 1967, and .David Kettler,Adam Fe~guson; New York 1965.

22. The idea of a 'natural order of society' may have been derived from Matteo Ricci's translations of Confucius. Quesnay whom his contemporaries called the 'Confucius of Europe', gave his manifesto of physiocracy the title Le Despotisme dans'. I.e Chine (1767) in which he wrote, that only in China existed 'a state founded on science and the natural law, whose concrete development it represents'. (Cited in Hugh Honour, Chinoisepie, London 1961, p. 24.)

23. See Shlomo Avineri, Hege1.'s Theo~y of the Mode~n State, Cambridge 1972, 'Any discussion of Hegel's theory of the. state proper has to contend with a prevalent built­in conception holding that Hegel advocated an authori­tarian, if not totalitarian form of government.. The preceding chapters have attempted to show how far. from the truth such a simpleminded explication of Hegel's political theory is' (p. 176).

24. Avineri, 'The Social and Political Thought of Kar.l f-1arx', op. cit., p. 17.

25. Ibid., p. 14.

26. Avineri (Ibid .• p. 12) shows the importance of the use which Marx made in his critique of Hegel of the transformation method introduced by Feuerbach. This method implies the. substit1J.tion of'subject forpredi­cate and vice versa. This is what is commonlv called 'turning Hegel's philosophy upside down'. Feuerbach anticipates Marx in this respect: 'Only the perception of objects and experiences in their objective actuality can free man from all prejudices. The transition from­the ideal to the real takes place only in the philo­sophy of Praxis'.

27. PhiZosophy of Right, cited by Avineri, Hegel's Theo~y of the State, op. cit., p. 237.

- 31 -

28. The clearest exposition of these assumptions are to be found in The Ge:r>man Ideo'logy, especially in 'Feuerbach, Opposition of the Materialistic and Idealistic Outlook': 'It follows ••• that all struggles within the state, the struggle between democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, the struggle for the fran­chise, etc. etc., .a:r>e me:r>e'ly the i'l'luso:r>y fo:r>ms in which the struggles of the different classes are fought out among one another •.. ' (International Publishers, New York edition, p. 23). The famous dictum 'The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas' is to be found in the same chapter (p. 39).

29. David Gold, Clarence Y.H. Lo, and Erik Olin Wright, 'Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State', Parts 1 and 2, MonthZy Review, Vol. 27, October and November 1975.

30. See e.g. Jurgen Habermas, Legitimationsp:r>ob'leme im Spatkapita'lismus, Frankfurt am Main 1973, and Claus Offe, St:r>uktu:r>p:r>ob'leme des kapita'listisahen Staates, Frankfurt am Main 1972. I would also include Bertell Ollmann's interesting analysis of 'the State as a value relation' (Chapter 30, .A'lienation, op. ait.) in this category. According to Ollmann 'Marx was more interested in the character of the forms he was examining than in who controlled them' (p. 220). His philosophical analysis of alienation was more important than his sociological analysis of politics ' and rule: 'The state is an illusory community as well as the instrume"nt of rule in class ridden societies: this best expresses its essential character' (p. 221).

31. Karl Marx, Capita'l, Vol. I, Moscow 1970, p. 86.

32.

33.

35.

Cited in Roderick Aya, The Missed Revo'lution, Anthropologisch~Sociologisch Centrum, Universiteit van Amsterdam 1975, p. 13.

In the translation of Roderick Aya, which is truer to the German text than the standard translation contained in Marx and Engels, Be'leated Wo:r>ks, Moscow 1931, pp. 328-329. '. .

Letter to the Editors of Otechestvenniye Zapiski, 1877 cited in Shlomo Avineri (ed.)", Ka:r>Z Ma:r>:x: on Co'loniaZism and Mode:r>nization, New York.1969, p. 469.

See Shlomo Avineri (ed.), ibid. Some examples: 'The need of a constantly expanding market for its

- 32 -

production chases the bourgeoisie allover the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, esta­blish connections everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the. world market given a cosmopolitan "character to production and consumption in every country' (Chapter I of the Communist Mani­festo). 'The specific task of bourgeois society is the establishment of a world market, at least in out­line, and of production based upon this world market' (Mavz to EngeZs, October 8, 1858). 'England has to fulfil a double mission in India: one destructive, the other. regenerating - the annihilation. of old . Asiatic society, and the laying of the material founda­tions of Western society in Asia .••. The bourgeois period of historv has to create the mater.ial basis of the new world - on the one h.and the universal intercourse founded upon the initial dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse; on the other hand the development of the productive powers of man and the transformation of material production into a scienti­fic domination of natural agencies. Bourgeois indus­try and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in the same way as geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth' ('The Future Results of British Rule in India " New Yovk DaiZy Tvibune, August 8, 1853).

36. See Samir Amin, 'Le Capitalisme et la rente fonciere: la domination du capitalisme sur l'agriculture', in Samir Amin and Kostas Vergopoulos, Le Question Pay­sanne et Ze CapitaZisme, Paris ~974 and W.G.Wolters, KZassevevhoudingenen PoZitieke Pvocessen in CentvaaZ FiZippiinen, Anthropologisch-Sociologisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam 1976. '.

37. For an analysis of the dynamics of these revolutions, combining in her. :explanation intersocietal with intranational processes, see Theda Skocpol, op. cit.

38. B. Hindess and P.Q. Hirst, Pve'-Capit'aZist Modes of Pvoduction, London 1975, p. 274. Cited in Talal Asad and Harold Wolpe, 'Concepts of Modes of Production', Economy and society, Vol, 5, No.4, November 1976, pp. 470-506, a critical review of the Hindess and Hirst study.

39. For a more extended analysis see G. van Benthem van den Bergh, 'The Str.ucture of Development: an. invita­tion to the sociology of Norbert Elias', OccasionaZ Papev, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague 1971.

- 33 -

40. Etienne Balibar, Cinq Etudes du Materialisme Historique, ,Paris 1974, p. 92 (my translation, BvdB).

41. Norbert Elias, Sociology of Knowledge, op. ait., espe­cially pp. 149-156 and pp. 365-369.

42. Maurice Godelier, 'Le r·1arxisme dans les Sciences Humanes' , Raison Presente, No. 37,.1976. I thank Peter Skalnik for drawing my attention to this article.

43. G. van Benthem van den Bergh, 'The Interconnections between Processes of State and Class Formation', Aata Politiaa, XI, 3 July 1976, pp. 289-312.

44. Hindess and Hirst,_ op.ait., p. 18.

45. Norbert' Elias, Was i,st Soziologie?, Munchen 1970, espe­cially pp. 151-159.

46. For a mpre extended answer to the question 'What are states?' see G. van Benthem van den Bergh, 'The Inter­connections', pp. 255-306.

47. See van Benthem van den Bergh, ibid. W.G. Woiters, Transformation of the Class Struggle within the State Formation Proaesses in the Phi Zipp'ines. Unpublished paper for Peasant Seminar, Centre of International . and Area Studies, University of London, 1976. A revised version will be published in Development and Change,1977.

48. See Norbert Elias, Uber den Prozess der Zivi lisation, Vol. II, Esp. Zusammenfas§ung, Entwurf zu einer Theorie der Zivilisation, VIII, Uberblick, especially ~p. 434~441 and pp. 451-454. Cf. also R.N. Berki, 'On r1arxian Thoughtand the Problem of International Relations', World Politias, XXIV, No.1, 1971, pp. 80-105. As Berki cites Marx: 'Is the whole inner organisation of nations, are all ,their international relations any­thing else than the expression ofa particular divi­sion of labour? And must not these change when the division of labour changes?' (Letter to P.V •. Annenkov, 1846). And: 'The relations of different nations among themselves deuend on the extent to which each has developed its-productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse' (The German Ideology) . Of interest are also Kenneth R. Naltz, Man, the State and War, New York 1959, and Tom Nairn, op. ait.

49. For some useful comments on l-1arxist exolanations of fascism (and its similarity to Stalinism) see A. James Gregor, 'Fascism and Modernization: some addenda',

- 34 -

World Polities, XXVI, 3 April 1974, pp. 370-384. He asks: 'Is Italian fascism a member of the class of mass-mobilising developmental dictatorships under single-party auspices that include Stalinism, Maoism and Castroism, as well as an indeterminate number of related political systems?' For his own (affirmative) answer see The Fasoist Persuasion in Radioal Politios, Princeton 1974. Gregor's short-term comparative pers­pective would benefit, however, from the analysis of the connection between the uneven development of capitalism and the rise of 'developmental dictator­ship' in peripheral states, as outlined in Tom Nairn, op. oit. .

50. Here we need to distinguish between the ~oincidentia oppositorum' effect of superpower comPetition, which makes, for example, the defence, foreign policy and secret s~rvices apparatuses of the United States and the Soviet Union quite alike in habitus and activities (as described, for example, in the novels of John Le Carr~) and the modelling effects of industrially and organisationally more advanced state societies on backward societies. For the latter see ~rnest Gellner, Thought and Change, London 1964; Tom Nairn, op. dit. and Theda Skocpol, 'A Critical Review of Barring.ton Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy', Politios and Sooiety, Vol. 4, 1, 1973, pp. 1-34.

~l. Admittedly the Austr9-Marxists and Stalin dealt with the problem of 'nations' in the context of multiethnic and multilingual· empires such as the Habsburg empire and Tsarist Russia. For an analysis of the inadequa­cies of Marxist explanations of nationalism, see Tom Nairn, op. e,it. and R.N. Berki, op. eit.

52. See further G. van Benthem van den Bergh, 'On the Con­cept of Power,' unpublished paper, Institute of Social Studies, 1971 and C. Marijnen, Een begripsanalyse vanuit het Paradigmavan Norbert Elias van R.M. Emerson's Maoht-Afhankelijkheidsrelaties, unpublished thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1972. H. Driessen, Een Essay over Maeht, unpublished thesis, Instituut voor Kulturele en Sociale Anthropologie, University of Nijmegen, 1976.

53. For the distinction between the syntactjc and semantic aspects of a theory see J.F. Glastra van Loon, 'Lan­guages and the Epistemological Foundations of the Social Sciences' in C .I.J.M Stuart (ed.), Monograph Se~ies on Language and Lingu sties. no. 17. Report of the 15th Annual R.T.M .. on L nguistie and Language Studies,

- 35 -

Leiden 1964; also his Norm en HandeLing, Haarlem 1956, Chapter V.

54. See further G. van Benthem van den Bergh, 'The Inter­connections between Processes of State and Class Forma­.tion', op. cit.

55. Ibid., pp. 298-299.

56. See also Thomas Kuhn's description of ptolemaic astro­nomy in his Theory of Scientific RevoLutions, (Chicago 1962), Chapters VII and VIII and The Copernican RevoLu­tion,· Cambridge, Mass . 1957. 'Given a particular dis­crepancy, astronomers were invariably able to eliminate it by making some particular adjustment in Ptolemy's system of compounded circles' (Theory of Scientific RevoLutions, p. B). Replace astronomers by Marxists and 'system of compounded circles' by 'the relations' be­tween base and superstructure" arid one has a description of the present state of Marxism.

57. See Aidan Foster-Carter, 'From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting Paradigms in the Analysis of Underdevelop­ment', WorLd DeveLopment, Vol. 4, No.3, March 1976,

'pp. 167-180 for a good description of the reasons why so many young students of Third World development have turned to Marxism.

58. See especially the second volume of Uber den Prozess der ZiviLisation, Bern und Munchen 1969; 'Processesof State Formation and Nation Building', Transactions of the 7th·WorLd Congress of SocioLogy, Varna 1970, Geneva 1972; and 'Toward a Theory of Communities' in Howard Newby and Colin Bell (eds.), Readings in the Society of Community, London 1974.

59. See especially Die HO'fische GeseUschaft, Neuwied and Berlin 1969.

60. See Was ist SozioLogie?, Munchen 1970, Chapter S.

61. The expression 'permanent revolution' reflects increased awareness of this.

62. Common to Marx'and Elias'models of development is also that they both see 'as one of the indispensable ingredi­ents of a scientific theory of society the fact that men may oppress and exploit men and that far from being unstructu~daccidents, social oppression and exploita­tionare structured and can be explained in connection

- 36 -

with t4e overall development of societies' (Norbert Elias, 'Sociology of knowledge: new perspectives', SociologY, Vol. 5, No.2, 1971, p. 155). Cornmon is also that they. see exploitation and oppression as originating in social differentiation and in compe­titionresulting from the uneven distribution and scarcity of what people need and value in life. In that sense Elias is just as much a (historical and dialectical) materialist as Marx was. .

63. See Norbert Elias and John Sootson, The Established and the Outsiders, London 1965.

64. For the usefulness of seeing and conceptualising human beings in the plural (to talk of men instead of man) see Johan Goudsblom, Sociology in the Balance, Oxford 1977.